Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Responding to Europe’s Political Polarization

The message from recent elections in EU member states is impossible to miss: Voters are deeply dissatisfied with mainstream parties and are increasingly willing to support radical alternatives. It would be foolish to hope that demands for change will wane once those making them are confronted with the responsibility of governing.

PARIS – In Europe, 2015 began with the far-left Syriza party’s election victory in Greece. It ended with another three elections that attested to increasing political polarization. In Portugal, the Socialist Party formed an alliance with its former archenemy, the Communists. In Poland, the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party won enough support to govern on its own. And in Spain, the emergence of Podemos, another new left-wing party, has ended the traditional hegemony of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party on the center left and the Partido Popular on the center right. (In France, moreover, the far-right National Front, led by Marine Le Pen, showed its strength in the first round of December’s regional elections, though it eventually failed to win any).

The message is impossible to miss: Increasingly, voters are deeply dissatisfied with mainstream parties and are willing to give a chance to those proposing radical alternatives. They are lending support to parties that, though very different from one another, all blame the European Union for the sorry state of their countries’ economies and labor markets.

To be sure, radicalization is not limited to Europe nowadays. As I have argued elsewhere, American presidential candidate Donald Trump owes his rise to many of the same factors that are driving Le Pen’s growing popularity. What is particularly problematic in the EU is the clash between radical politics and mainstream governance.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Jean Pisani-Ferry, a professor at the Hertie School of Governance (Berlin) and Sciences Po (Paris), holds the Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa chair at the European University Institute and is a Mercator senior fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank.

This was quite an interesting and thought-provoking article. It comes to the point in many aspects, but, in my view, it still fails to identify or to mention the real underlying reason that leads to the odd imbalance between constitutional and legislative matters in the construct called "EU" and that is the fundamental disagreement between member states on core political, economical and social issues.

This again leads to wrong conclusions as exemplified by the very last sentence of the article that transnational democracy would be "the most viable response to rising political polarization in Europe" where in reality it is the other way round that the forced decisions taken in Brussels, ignoring the fundamental disagreements between member states and, in the end, ignoring democratic forming of the political will itself, are the cause for the rising polarization in Europe.

So it boils down to the question: what is meant by the concept of "transnational democracy" and how is it implemented? It seems to be a contradiction in terms because nation in latin is what demos is in Greek - so the demos shall rule but the decisions are taken superseding the nation? I would not object against cooperation between nations as long as democracy is preserved. So I could imagine, e.g., a European "parliament" where agreements are found in a way that there has to be a majority within each national group (meaning the demos of Malta agreed as well as the demos of Denmark agreed). I could imagine a currency peg which could be released again if that was requested by the demos. But if "transnational democracy" means that nations are forced to accept austerity or illegal immigrants or unprotected borders or liability for bankrupt foreign governments against their will - then this is in my view the death of democracy.

This again correlates with the question whether just policy errors were made or whether the concept itself is to blame for the death of democracy (and I lean towards the latter option). So, deep down, the real underlying question might be the definition of "demos". Does demos just mean people living together on the same territory as the zeitgeist implies? In that case, policy errors could explain the unwished reactions experienced by the elites and the construction could maybe fixed. Or does demos mean more, deeper ties reaching even to the unconscious? In that case (and I lean towards it), the concept of "transnational democracy" will inevitably fail, will always fail, no matter the pressure and no matter the propaganda, and the more you try the deeper you will fail.

Then again the question arises: who are the real radicals when transnational democracy is considered a radical idea? And who is in the position to define what is radical and what is a demos?

"Those (like me) who think that specific policy errors and institutional flaws are more to blame than European integration itself are being drowned out."

It seems to me, prof. Jean Pisani-Ferry is in denial.

"European integration itself" is not accidentally built with what he calls "institutional flaws" and it is largely questionable whether there is any --unspoken of-- consensus on a single "political error" of EU governance during the crisis.

The claim, made in the end, that the radicals will make it "hard [...] to agree on additional competences and a stronger European Parliament," is baseless. Why aren't the "radicals" the driving force of change? Maybe --just maybe-- it is the status quo that creates the inertia to any change.

Reversely, the politics of "the stronger takes all" exhibited in right-wing policy rigidity of the terms of the last Greek bailout and, more generally, making official the debt of private banks, either through the ECB's SMP program or through the official bailouts, point elsewhere.

The economically stronger (core) countries do not want democratic accountability at the European level, for the most part, and the plea to the rule of law is --and has always been in international politics-- a guise for the preservation of the oligarchic status quo.

One only needs to consider what is the supposed democratisation of European institutions and who is going to decide about it. It will be governments, representing the internal power structures in member countries, always elected by a minority (considering participation in elections). Could it be likely that they will give up part of their power to another political institution, like the European parliament?

Is it accidental that European integration was not built on political basis, in the first place, but was built instead around the concept of a common market and a single central bank? Can the predominance of market principles retreat to second place, enthroning politics to the primary role of an integrated Europe? There is only one chance for that: superficial primacy of politics, behind subjugation to markets and/or currency as the, supposedly, main pillars of "democracy", backed by treaties/constitution and "the rule of law".

Can Europe re-establish politics before market and currency? Will it ever be possible for European politics to reform its market and currency? Only when it becomes "an idea whose time has come". But this is exactly like the argument of Marx on an inevitable revolution. Their probability is slim and does not improve. Peoples will almost always pull back in the face of sanctions from those who hold the means of production and the basis of their currency, unless faced with external disaster. And the status quo knows this.

"It is the Economy s....d" well, when I was exposing the weakness of the EU trickle-down economics that was not capable of apprehending the probabilities given by the powerful exogenous forces of the globalization and rising productivity.., the inadequate EU economics so well presented in your papers?

Jean Pisani-Ferry .. your piece is synchronous with the views of Varoufakis in this interview https://t.co/gFpTJJa9QI And his diagnosis is largely the same.

He wants to start an EU wide leftist movement to fight the current institutions that lock-in austerity, a system largely based on rules that cannot be changed, but cannot lead to a sustainable future either. Varoufakis states that he'll be in Berlin on 7th of februari to try and launch this movement. Will you be there too, Jean?

Vannis reminds me of Hannibal. A fight taken to the centre of the problem. A strategic gain shaking the core only for home support to be removed at the critical point leaving him isolated. Scipio studies the weakeness and wins the next battle. Hannibal is left isolated

Bear in mind the conflict between the Greek voter wanting to keep the euro and deny the debt. That conflict will repeat again and again and not just in Greece

Further - the Eurozone transfers wealth from outlying economies to the centre stronger economies. Common currency areas feature subsidy or wealth tranfer stronger economic region to poorer economic region. Otherwise the poorer areas depopulate and weaken. This does not exist with the EZ. There can only be two outcomes both of which occur concurently. The outlying regions have debt growth and the core becomes wealthier

Both of these effects are clearly documented - Greek debt grew and continues de facto to grow. Germany benefited from a lower euro exchange rate boosting its exports. Germany gained 100+Billion euros from low interest rates

There is no reason for German voters to wish a change to this structure and they are not alone, there are other beneficiaries. Blocking moves then occur, again clearly documented

'Debt is such a powerful tool, it is such a useful tool, it's much better than colonialism ever was because you can keep control without having an army, without having a whole administration' Susan George

Clearly Susan is correct because at the end of the day the Greeks self managed their own surrender to debt serfdom

There will be no chnage to the way the EU operates until the majority determine it, which is why EU supporters again and again attempt to protray voters as uneducated and emotional and not clear thinking - instead of acknowledging that it is a valid democratic response to protest at the ballot box

Basically things have to get a great deal worse for the EU to change. Such brinkmanship is risky, but inexperienced gamblers often get the odds wrong and think they are better with judgement than they really are

Some of the terminologies used in the article are quite strong and could be misleading or misinterpreted. As long as transparency in governance (meaning true democracy) remains lacking at the EU, US and global level, and one should not forget that we still live in a global economy where we are all inter-dependent and the attitude and the lack of a “true will” by the current leadership to break away from the “Status Quo” and leave room for a new generation of leaders, change from the bottom up shall be inevitable sooner or later. This new-year message by a fellow commentator says it all: “I’d like to thank governments worldwide for putting their citizens on high alert. Nothing rings in the new -year better than ensuring that people are suspicious and afraid of each other. I would like also to thank all the news outlets on the planet for using the word terrorist so often that people have become afraid of their own shadows. I am sure the words nut job or madman wouldn't have had quite the same effect on the nations psyche. Let’s make this a year of extraordinary violence in movies and on television and lets ensure that every depraved act is continually repeated on the six o’clock news to keep us citizens so off balance and mentally damaged that we may never figure out what a peaceful existence is or what a world without greed, war and environmental destruction might be. May we all remain silent on the things that matter and do nothing so that our children and grandchildren inherit a planet without basic freedoms and so they can live in a place where technology has so dehumanized us that we no longer speak to each other, just txt lol. Happy New Year every one. If you can remember what happy is. If you aren't too busy this year , you might want to take back your planet from governments corrupted by the corporations hell bent on extracting every last penny from you at the cost of the very air and water that sustains your lives....just sayin' is all.”

The narrative implicit in the political drive that constructed The EU, is fundamentally disconnected.
The Global Economy confronted with Four Geopolitical Risks - China Russia Islam Internet.
The drivers within EU have no room or time - for the Four Global Risks.
They believe these test America's capacity - and once America succeeded, the spoils must he shared with The EU.
Should America ( & The Anglosphere) fail versus The Four Global Risks, The EU must tick them off and take over.
Within The EU, there are several agenda at play - oblivious of any shared responsibilities to manage Global Risks.
Self interest of key players further accentuates the predicament - polarization is but natural.
Eastern European priority is Migration - nearly 8 million now in Britain since the floodgates were opened in the 1990s.
France is megalomaniacally driven - since Chirac wanted the PetroEuro to pay for Oil - to challenge The Anglosphere.
Germany found its salvation in the European Community after 1945 - now morphed into The European Union.
"The construction of a transnational democracy is the most viable response to political polarization in Europe".
France indeed is the reason why European Union exists - and the narrative that secures European Victory will be scripted in Paris.
Given the lessons of history, The PutinEuro rather than The PetroEuro seems to be the more plausible narrative.
That will bury the disunion, and secure The European Union that enables forward march.
Unless Trumped by The PutinDollar that Donald promises...

I follow thrust of yr policy oriented argument on way forward for EU. Former Council President (Herman Van Rompuy) says the cause is due to lack of political leadership (ie. Tusk).

First error we made was expansion to East without securing the Single Market(SM) & EMU in Western Europe. The current polarization is not only caused by an incompetent Tusk in-charge of Council but also due to his incapacity to lead and understand the hitherto culture/tradition of Western Europe.
Now the point has been reached when Poland/Hungary/ Czech/Slovakia constitute a blocking rear-guard on going forward on political integration.
Finally, Lisbon Treaty neutralized EP/Commission by giving decisive political power to Council. Whereas Council is made up of sovereign member states and their leaders; their political incapacity to arrive at policy consensus is jeopardizing the future of EU, as currently constituted.

Juncker's idea of constituting a separate legal entity for Euro Group may finally force the political issue, methinks.

'Political realignments are to be expected in democracies; indeed, democratic institutions are designed to make them possible. Generally, the constitution does not change, or changes only slowly, whereas a new party or coalition redefines the policy agenda and reforms the legislation. This combination of rigidity and plasticity enables democratic regimes to adapt to shifts in citizens’ preferences.'

Shortly followed by -

'The same does not apply to Europe, however'

And that in a nutshell is the problem, democracies have evolved to feature flexibility, to allow rule changes as driven by events. This is missing in the EU structure so stress in the face or major and sustained problems can only grow. Nothing to do with the person at the helm. In fact the problem is they are not allowed to be at the helm. Rule changes can be - and are - blocked repeatedly. This can only end in disaster. Events do not have uniform impact so stasis occurs. The EU is psychologically frozen. This is a developmental problem

I find it entirely EU that J P-F can full identify and detail the problem but still refuses to accept the outcome of his own logical assessment, apparently because it would destroy the illusion of the current EU concept

If anybody thinks the stress caused by the Euro crisis, EU migration or EU homegrown terrorism is in hand or anywhere near being sorted they are sadly mistaken

You are however right IMO that part of the problem is the (politically rather than economically) driven EU expansion which is still in play

Quite an interesting overview of the self inflicted inflexibility of the EU and the fact than blocking strategies from one quarter can be imposed elsewhere, unilaterally as far as that locality is concerned.

Despite this recognition you claim - 'Those (like me) who think that specific policy errors and institutional flaws are more to blame than European integration itself are being drowned out'. You fail to put any convincing arguemnt forward to support your belief. Furthermore your position has by your own acknowledgement lost popular mandate on a widespread basis

Implicit in your position appears to be the belief that the Euro is a sound concept which it demonstrably is not. It has failed

Whilst it would be nice to think that an 'EU more amenable to political change' could occur, the fact is that there is no evidence that this will happen voluntarily. You do however hold the key to the problem - Things have got to get worse all round so a majority are upset, then there may be change, otherwise there will not be any. Well in the face of current tends things are due to get a whole lot worse, it is the only logical outcome

Basically your positon does not stand scrutiny and it is little more than a status quo defence